Madhya Pradesh Court July 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramhit Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.3130/2010 4.7.2012 Shri Shivendra Pandey, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 3. I.A.No.8372/2012. By order dated 16.2.2012 this Court directed respondent nos.1 & 2 to get the case registered regarding suspicion alleged and to get the same investigated by the C.I.D.Status report of the investigation was directed to be filed within a period of two months. By this application the respondents are seeking further four months time to submit status report. From the perusal of application, we find that on 27.4.2012, the Additional Director General of Police (CID) Bhopal appointed an Investigating Officer, but it appears that in spite of lapse of nearabout two months there is no progress. Considering the seriousness of the matter, we allow further a month's time to the respondents to submit the status report, as directed by this Court on 16.2.2012. For this purpose, we direct that this case be listed for hearing on 8.8.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) ...
Sunil Kumar Salariya Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1 MCC No.710/2012 Sunil Kumar Salariya & others Union of India & others 4.7.2012 Shri Munish Saini, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Shekhar Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondent No.6. This is an application for restoration of Writ Petition No.28572/03 which was dismissed in default because of non- appearance of the petitioners at the time of hearing of the petition. It appears that the petition was listed for final hearing and on 4.11.2009, a prayer was made on behalf of petitioners for an adjournment. The case was adjourned. Thereafter, on 29.11.2010, the case was listed but none had appeared for petitioners and the case was adjourned and ultimately on 27.4.2012, the case was listed for hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of petitioners and the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Now, this application has been filed for restoration of the writ petition. The ground stated in the application is that the clerk of the counsel could n...
Tarbar Singh Thakur Vs. Jay Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1....MCC.No.698 o4. 7.2012 Ms.C.V.Rao, Counsel for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of M.A.1144/2006 which was dismissed because of the non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.5.2006. For the reasons stated in the application which are supported by an affidavit, we find it appropriate to allow this application by condoning the delay in filing this application on following terms:- 1. applicant to deposit Rs.500/- in the High Court Bar Association for Library fund within a period of one week from today.2. On furnishing the receipt there on in the office, office to restore the appeal and list the same before the appropriate Bench. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Mukesh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1 Cr.A. No.412/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.412/1997 Mukesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A.K. Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 4th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.2.1997 in S.T. No.27/1995 passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge Damoh, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 354 & 458 of IPC and sentenced for three years R.I. with fine of `500/-, one year R.I. and three years R.I. with fine of `50...
M/S Poonam Chand Hiralal Lalwani Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1 W.P.No.6520/2005 M/s Poonam Chand Hiralal Lalwani versus State of M.P.& ORS.04.07.2012 Shri Sameer Seth learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohrey learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Shri Rakesh Jain learned counsel for respondent no.2. Shri Sanjay Sarwate learned counsel for respondent no.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.4.1988 which has been affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority on 20.10.2004 and 28.12.2004 whereby the petitioner's licence to do business of Food Grains has been cancelled. It is informed by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the petition has been rendered infructuous with the afflux of time on account of the fact that the Krishni Upaj Mandi has not been shifted elsewhere and, therefore, the petitioner in any case cannot be granted licence at the place from where the Mandi has been shifted. 2 W.P.No.652...
The State of M.P. Vs. Shyam Sunder and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.645/1998 State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS Shyam Sunder & Others --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri D.S.Chouhan, counsel for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 4th day of July, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.1997 passed by learned JMFC, Sidhi (Shri Tarkeshwar Singh) in criminal case No.150/1996, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 447, 427 of IPC.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant Bina Singh (P.W.2) had submitted an FIR, Ex.P/1 on 9.12.1995 to Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi that in the previous night, she was sleeping in her new house at Shankarpur with her son ...
Ramnath Mhasuji Mungi Balhal Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
04.07.2012. Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar for the petitioner. Smt. Kanak Gaharwar for the respondents. Challenging an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur on 7.3.2001, rejecting the claim for reinstatement made by the petitioner and upholding the termination of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner was appointed as an adhoc temporary lower division clerk by the Employee State Insurance Corporation on 13.8.1982. He was posted at Nanded, in Maharashtra. His services were terminated on 30.4.1985. Interalia contending that he has worked continuously from 13.8.1982 upto 30.4.1985, when his services were terminated and his service amounted to retrenchment. The retrenchment is illegal due to non- compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ID Act).a dispute was raised by the petitioner and failing settlement in conciliation, the dispute...
Arun Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1 W.P.No.9617/2012 Arun Kumar Soni versus State of M.P.& ORS.04.07.2012 Shri Sachin Soni learned counsel for the petitioner. I.A No.8577/2012 for taking documents on record is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Documents be taken on record. Also heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are going ahead for conducting of election of the petitioner's Society without notifying or properly scrutinizing the voter list in respect of which the petitioner has filed an objection which has not been decided till date. From a perusal of the documents, Annexure P-8, filed by the petitioner alongwith the application for taking documents on record, it is apparent that the election programme was notified by the competent authority on 20.6.2011 providing that the date for filing nomination was 28.6.2012; the date for scrutiny of nomination papers was 30.6.2012; the last date for withdrawal of the nomina...
Ghanshyam Patidar Vs. M/S Gaur and Sons
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1....F.A.No.1092 o4. 7.2012 Shri K.S.Jha, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Shroti, Counsel for the respondent. I.A.5597 of 2012 for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant in compliance of order dated 7.3.2012. By order dated 7.3.2012, we directed the appellant to deposit the 50% of the decretal amount within a period of 60 days before the trial Court for staying the execution of the impugned judgment and decree. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant herein has deposited 50% of the decretal amount before the trial Court. The respondent/plaintiff wants to withdraw this amount and for this purpose this application is filed. The prayer made by the respondent is opposed by Shri Jha, learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that if permission is granted to the respondent to withdraw the amount, security may be obtained from the respondent before release of the amount. Considering the fact that the aforesaid amount relates to the contract of co...
M/S Sagar Mines Pvt.Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1....W.P.No.16148 of 2007 Sagar Mines PVT.LTD.State of M.P.& otheRs.4.7.2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Counsel for the respondents. A short controveRs.involved in this case is whether the petitioner was liable for payment of entry tax who purchased plant, machinery and tools before commencement of the mining business, which were brought by the petitioner within the local limits of Katni. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.versus Universal Cables LTD.Satna (2007)11 STJ 307. It was further submitted by Shri Agrawal that earlier also in Maihar Cement versus Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (1986) 19 VKN 3.(MP) a similar view was taken by another Division Bench in the matter. The aforesaid position is factually not disputed by Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- Next ›
- Last »